Behind the Science New Global Warming Scandal: 'Consensus' on Sun is One Expert
|
25 June 2010
New global warming data fraud scandal seems to show a faked 'consensus' of the impact of solar forcing on Earth's climate based on one finding.
A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate.
The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate.”
Roughly translated into English the site reveals that the The IPCC relied on evidence supplied by just only one Solar Physicist, Judith Lean, to create their "consensus that solar influence upon the climate was minimal.
Judithgate Scandal Goes Viral
The story has going viral on climate skeptic websites and is reported on a leading blog, ‘Climate Realists’ as ,’IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper.’
Apparently, objections were raised to the IPCC by the Norwegian Government as early as the draft version in the preliminary phases of the IPCC’s draft of their Fourth Report of 2007, which won the organization the Nobel Peace Prize.
A total of six further peer-reviewed papers were dismissed by the IPCC for inclusion. At least one of the papers, by leading solar expert Hans Svensmark totally contradicted the IPCC’s conclusions that the Sun was not a key player in climate change.
Norwegian Government Snubbed By ‘Politicized’ IPCC
Citing evidence from the IPCC’s Fourth Report (AR4) second draft comments objections to the creation of a faked consensus among scientists was raised by scientitic representatives from the Norwegian Government which spotted the fraud.
Their noted objection reads: "I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor. I find that this paper, which certainly can be correct, is given too much weight."
The IPCC dismissed the objections of the Norwegian government outright stating that any such changes would be “impractical.”
“Scandalous Re-writing” of Climate Data Records
The Czech blog outraged at what it sees as apparent cherry-picking to fit a pre-determined political view to blame global warming on man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, fumed, "Judith Lean, along with Claus Frohlich, are responsible for the scandalous rewriting of graphs of solar activity.”
Backed up by evidence obtained from the Harvard University Library, it may be proven that satellite measurements between 1986 and 96 do indicate that Judith Lean and Claus Frohlich (authors of the single study noted above) "manipulated" their data.
More Woe For Beleagured IPCC Chairman, Pachauri
The article asserts that there was also further deliberate intent committed by the IPCC to stifle objections raised by other international climate experts, “People who were in charge of the satellites and created the original graphs (the world's best astrophysics: Doug Hoyt, Richard C. Willson), protested in vain against such manipulation.”
The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, had already admitted to similar such "errors" in the Glaciergate scandal but has repeatedly refused to resign, as reported in the India Times. The UN has been conducting it's own internal investigations but has not divulged its findings to the public.
Comments
If the main stream media were true to themselves and had some respect towards their readers, they would immediately tell the world about such scams, lies, damned lies and cooked statistics. but the MSM, mainly controlled by leftists, is in cahoots with the IPCC cabal and would do anything to hide the truth and other declines.
That's how they phrased it. Really!
So, what's wrong with a one person consensus? At least she agreed with herself! She could have been internally conflicted - if she had a conscience.
In an article on Methane Hydrate Ice you find that: Recent discoveries about the existence of a vast band of Methane Hydrate Ice along the world's continental Slopes, at approx. 500 meters depth, have revolutionized the theories of the Ice Age and Global Warming Cycles. The accumulation of Methane Ice leads to Ice Ages and the rapid melting and effervescence of this ice and gas leads to an equally rapid Global Warming.
just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/
Vast amounts of methane, a greenhouse gas 23-25 times more potent than carbon dioxide, are locked in the deep sea and in the frozen soils of Siberia, Northern Europe, and North America, but warming could trigger rapid thawing that would release billions of tons into the atmosphere.
"The potential consequences of large amounts of methane entering the atmosphere, from thawing permafrost or destabilized ocean hydrates, would lead to abrupt changes in the climate that would likely be irreversible. We must not cross that threshold.
could precipitate Global Warming - very very fast:
could could could?
And then again it could not! it's just like Ed's facts that it seems real or possibly real. But it could and then again it could not. I guess we'll have to wait and see for proof now won't we.
Get your woolies on!!
=================
Dr. Jone went on to say he was convinced of man-made global warming.
climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think2/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist
and
www.klimaskeptik.cz/english/
V.Kremlik, klimaskeptik.cz
docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
When I was going to school, the people in drama were a bit, flakey... to be blunt. Good people but a bit... flakey. Now it seems those same people, who are now in Hollywood, have policy makers ears.
For Gawd's sake Bono... when you meet a Prime Minister or President, take yer damn sunglasses off... or are you that stoned?
I expect an answer Bono 'cuz I know you visit this site often.
All the best Jeff
Bono is a bit poorly at the moment, he has a bad back, probably due to him carrying the weight of the whole world on it.
One consolation of this is that the pathetic luvvy U2 had to pull out of Glastonbury, which was very welcome as they were replaced by the Gorrilaz who stole the show, Damon Albarn, Snoop Doggy Dog, De La Soul, Lou Reed (The Boss), Mick Jones, Paul Simenon (The Clash)and many more.
Eat yer heart out Bonio, you are a has been.
Oh hee hee ha ha
PS Did you know that the continental United States has 3 times as many warm record days as cold? More Gore hot air or perhaps the equivalent of 300 active volcanoes spewing the heat-trapping gas CO2 into the atmosphere on a daily basis?
Do Skeptics talk just to see if anyone is listening?
Oxidane is considered, by scientific consensus, the most potent of earth bound greenhouse gasses. It is also used extensively in the nuclear (both civilian and military) and fossil fuel industries. It is used as an industrial solvent and coolant.
Hydroxylic acid is a major contributor to ocean acidification. It can cause severe burns to the skin and soft tissue lining of the mouth. It is toxic if inhaled and can lead to death in under 2 minutes unless immediate, preventative measures are taken. It is a recognized product of tobbacco combustion in cigarette smoke and is used extensively in both herbicide and pesticide applications. Furthermore, no amount of washing will remove it from fruit or vegetables and it is found in over 50% of human and 93% of test animal cancer cells.
******* People Need To Know This*******
I would cite my sources but you always seem to take exception to them. I will provide them, however, upon your request.
I wasn't going to let you both in on my research, but, truth, honesty and integrity are fundamental to the intrests of debate and I felt you were both entitled to what I had honestly found. Secondly, as it is a result of global warming it in no way contradicts my personal belief as to the causes of global warming. In the meanwhile, you can cut and paste my research to put on the normally mendacious, alarmist web sites that you usually inhabit. Feel free to claim my hard work as your own as I won't be there to dispute you... besides your side could use a little good news about now!
All the best Jeff
PS.... one more thing.... why is removing oil from Alberta tar sands bad-bad-bad, but removing oil from La and Florida beach sands good-good-good??? Next thing you know they will claim the oil-sands as a Green Job!!!
Answer: Infinitesimal
The IPCC now agrees. See the IPCC Technical Report section entitled Global Warming Potential (GWP). And the GWP for CO2? Just 1, (one), unity, the lowest of all green house gases (GHG). What’s more, trace gases which include GHG constitute less than 1% of the atmosphere. Of that 1%, water vapor, the most powerful GHG, makes ups 40% of the total. Carbon dioxide is 1/10th of that amount, an insignificant .04%. If carbon dioxide levels were cut in half to 200PPM, all plant growth would stop according to agricultural scientists. It's no accident that commercial green house owner/operators invest heavily in CO2 generators to increase production, revenues and profits. Prof. Michael Mann's Bristle cone tree proxy data (Hockey stick) proves nothing has done more to GREEN (verb) the planet over the past few decades than moderate sun-driven warming (see solar inertial motion) together with elevated levels of CO2, regardless of the source. None of these facts have been reported in the national media. Why?
CO2 is not a poison unless you're exposed to a pure atmosphere of it (100%) for a period of time. You're comparing apples to oranges and saying it doesn't matter because they're all in the same basket. Sorry, don't work that way.
Also, CO2 levels have been substantially higher in the more distant past, and were in fact several times higher going into one ice age.
There is none, zero, nada, evidence that CO2 has had any impact on temperature since the earth graduated from being a big rock to creation of living things. The relationship between CO2 and temperature is inverse - rising temperature has always happened first. (HIgher ocan temps permit release of CO2. Colder temps reabsorb.
www.freecarbonoffsets.com
Go get yourself a free certificate that you can wave in the face of anyone who buys into that silliness.
All the best Jeff
It's a natural, and harmless trace gas that is needed for all plant and animal life on this planet to survive.
The truth has been shown to them, but they refuse to believe. There is something self-destructive in people that want to believe a fake doomsday fantasy over science.
However, I post this for the few that still believe Gore and his ilk, because there is a very small minority that have been duped and honestly believe the lies because the lies have been everywhere until recently:
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8Cover the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").
There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.
MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature increase for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.
FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 – 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.
The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapour and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and – in the end – are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".
Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.
FACT: Computer models can be made to "verify" anything by changing some of the 5 million input parameters or any of a multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program used.. They do not "prove" anything. Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds. The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time, This happens largely in cyclical fashion. The number and the lengths in time of sunspots can be correlated very closely with average temperatures on earth, e.g. the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. Varying intensity of solar heat radiation affects the surface temperature of the oceans and the currents. Warmer ocean water expels gases, some of which are CO2. Solar radiation interferes with the cosmic ray flux, thus influencing the amount ionized nuclei which control cloud cover.
MYTH 6: The UN proved that man–made CO2 causes global warming.
FACT: In a 1996 report by the UN on global warming, two statements were deleted from the final draft. Here they are:
1) “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases.”
2) “No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to man–made causes”
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 causes significant global warming.
MYTH 7: CO2 is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously. Unfortunately, the Canadian Government has included CO2 with a number of truly toxic and noxious substances listed by the Environmental Protection Act, only as their means to politically control it.
FACT: There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that supports such claims on a global scale. Regional variations may occur. Growing insurance and infrastructure repair costs, particularly in coastal areas, are sometimes claimed to be the result of increasing frequency and severity of storms, whereas in reality they are a function of increasing population density, escalating development value, and ever more media reporting.
MYTH 9: Receding glaciers and the calving of ice shelves are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature.
MYTH 10: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
If I had more time (I'm on lunch break) I'd pull a bunch refuting most of what you just posted. Did you get this from Monkton? Some tabloid with a two-headed devil baby on the front?
A study released last week, or the week before, discusses how Greenland's sheets are shrinking. Another how warm water infiltration has separated one of Antarctica's glaciers from its underlying island.These processes have been shown to be accelerating.
Show us something (references, documents, studies) in the way of underlying science that backs up your claims and I'll happily examine it with a critical, skeptical, and objective eye.
Because my readings, and I generally try to read both sides, are quite different than yours apparently.
Thank you for pointing out the error of my ways. I have better things to do with my time than waste it here. Life's too short for your BS.
I mistakenly believed this was a place of rational thought, discussion, and debate. Not a playground.
And what Jeff said.
I don't know you, or Jeff, for that matter, but clearly you're incapable of thought higher than the Grade 3 level as your comment indicates. Your response lacks emotional intelligence commonly found in adults.
I tried being the adult and was met with sticks and stones.
The best you guys can do is insult me (and likely anyone else who disagrees with you). Congratulations on the 21st Century attitude. You've really progressed. Not.
If you're not interested in rational thought, respectful debate, or intellectual discussion perhaps you should just stay out of the discussion entirely.
This is my last post here. I won't be subjecting myself to any further abuse from you or anyone else here. Enjoy your gloat and be merry. You've already proven your true colours through and through and clearly no one here is receptive to further discourse.
Peace be with you.
Sleeping Grizzly got a bit hot under the collar.
Oh ho ho ho, obviously hasn't heard of the healing power of laughter.
G'bye pal
Keep smilin
The anti-science crowd is immune to logic and evidence, but you still got to love them.
And as for facts, I've seen plenty of 'em.
But what it really comes down to is this.
The debate ain't over, science is never settled, if it where down to consensus, the Sun would revolve around the Earth which would be flat.
You lot are the anti science crowd.
Keep smilin
Oh hee hee ha haaaa!
And, let's say that there is even a slight probability that global warming is true, are you really comfortable gambling with such high stakes? Extinction is not reversible. I think it would pay dividends to follow the pre-cautionary principle.
I think the situation is analogs to an elderly person rejecting their Portable Oxygen Concentrator beccause they are concerned it may not help them. In no situation, there is no risk (or disadvantage) to trying the concentrator (or in the case of global warming, pro-active policy changes).
Extinction is not reversible and the human race dissapearing for good in your worst nightmare would what? leave a planet broken hearted and all on it's own. :)
Seriously stop the fear peddling and live a little.
None of this implies that we shouldn't pursue other energy sources. It is also clear that the bigger danger would be to permit our brainless politicians to take advantage of this faux crisis.
You need to take a look at the science and appreciate what we do know. The reference below is a google document. If you have an inclination to understand more about the basic science, be my guest:
docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw
And secondly it will put the marxist greentards off untill the truth comes out that the warming was natural. Then it can be safely vented into greenhouses once global cooling begins.
1. Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
2. Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
3. Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
4. Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
5. Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
6. American Meteorological Society
7. World Health Organization
8. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
9. Arctic Climate Impact Assessment
10. American Geophysical Union
11. European Federation of Geologists
12. European Geosciences Union
13. Geological Society of America
14. International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
15. Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
16. American Public Health Association
17. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control
18. World Federation of Public Health Associations
19. European Academy of Sciences and Arts
20. InterAcademy Council
21. International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
22. Network of African Science Academies
23. Royal Society of New Zealand
24. American Association for the Advancement of Science
25. European Science Foundation
26. American Society for Microbiology
27. Australian Coral Reef Society
28. Institute of Biology (UK)
29. Society of American Foresters
30. The Wildlife Society (international)
31. Polish Academy of Sciences (Geological Committee)
32. American Institute of Professional Geologists
33. American Geological Institute
34. American Association of Petroleum Geologists
35. American Association of State Climatologists
36. Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
37. American Statistical Association
38. American Physical Society
39. American Chemical Society
40. American Astronomical Society
41. International Union for Quaternary Research
42. American Quaternary Association
43. World Meteorological Organization
44..American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
Wal-Mart
"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed." 1, 2, 3 - Lee Scott., CEO
Evangelical Climate Initiative
Human-Induced Climate Change is Real... The Consequences of Climate Change Will Be Significant, and Will Hit the Poor the Hardest ... Christian Moral Convictions Demand Our Response to the Climate Change Problem ... The need to act now is urgent. Governments, businesses, churches, and individuals all have a role to play in addressing climate change—starting now. -Climate Change An Evangelical Call to Action , Signatories
National Association of Evangelicals
"But support on the issue has broadened. God's call on his people is to care for his creation." - Jim Jewell, serving (52 denominations serving 30 million parishioners) Businessweek, The Race Againse Climate Change, 12, 12, 2005
On proof that the earth's temperature has been higher during prior warmings --- the proof has been provided by numerous studies. (see my earlier reference to a google doc which includes both commentary and even map references).
In any event you should understand that "proof" of claim must be provided by those who make or believe the clam of AGW (or CAGW). I can always claim that the sun will burn out on Dec. 25th 2010 and then demand that you (presumably a skeptic ) must prove otherwise.
"Proof of claim"? has got me confused - isn't providing "proof" (or as scientists like to say an "increased certainty" the entire purpose of the IPCC? The goal of increased certainty within their conclusions is the reason why the IPCC reviews thousands of studies conducted by hundreds of scientists from scores of countries over dozens of years. The IPCC "proof' is provided every 4 years and is supported by every scientific academy on earth -- when will the climate Realists see any "proof" from the Skeptic camp? PS Misinterpreting 10-year old emails from England won't pass muster -- how about some actual evidence for a change.
Mike Mann responds to Kevin Trenberth:
Thanks Kevin, yes, it’s a matter of what question one is asking. To argue that the observed global average temperatures of the past decade falsify the model projections …, as the contrarians have been fond of claiming, is clearly wrong. But that doesn’t mean we can explain exactly what’s going on.
Which should I believe? Proof or certainty?
You should believe in the highest mathematical certainty available at the time because this principal is the cornerstone to progress and understanding and this principal is what has led man out of the dark ages.
Someone on this website, with a name very similar to Drewski, asked that Skeptics show proof that the temperature was higher during an earlier warming era. I was directing my reply to that person, perhaps your evil twin.
"Proof of claim"? has got me confused - isn't providing "proof" (or as scientists like to say an "increased certainty" the entire purpose of the IPCC?
Evidently that was the IPCC’s supposed mission. Your confusion must be related to you not understanding that they did not adhere to their mission.
The goal of increased certainty within their conclusions is the reason why the IPCC reviews thousands of studies conducted by hundreds of scientists from scores of countries over dozens of years. The IPCC "proof' is provided every 4 years and is supported by every scientific academy on earth -- when will the climate Realists see any "proof" from the Skeptic camp? PS Misinterpreting 10-year old emails from England won't pass muster -- how about some actual evidence for a change.
You are parroting Gore on the “10 year old emails”. The emails ran right up until the last year or so.
Not only are you unable to understand the proof provided by skeptics that warming is not anthropogenic, you obviously do not understand that it is the obligation of those “scientists” advocating AGW to prove their position and they, unlike the skeptics have failed in every respect. They cannot even provide any valid evidence, let alone proof. Normally it would be most efficient to simply ignore these folks until they can provide some evidence, but in this case that would be dangerous because we have lame brained politicians who are evidently willing to destroy our economy in their zeal to respond to this phony crisis.
You have requested evidence, but I pointed you to a google document which does just that (written by me, but also includes numerous references), and you have chosen to ignore that suggestion. Any fool can forever chant “show me the evidence”. You have failed to address either issue. (1) That it is incumbent on those who make the AGW claim to prove it, or show some evidence – and they cannot, and (2) Lacking that, show why the skeptics arguments are not valid. So far warmists can do neither.
Show me peer-reviewed arguments that conclude that man does not have an impact on climate. Provide EVIDENCE that the IPCC did not adhere to their mission. Show me a paper that falsifies CO2 is a heat-trapping gas or that it is not accumulating in the atmosphere. Point to one reputable science society, organization, academy or ladies bridge club that has a stated position in opposition to AGW. Or just point out -- accurately -- which emails are damming and why?
Now don't be lazy -- here is your chance to shine. Oh, and don't send me on a wild goose cyber chase -- present it for all too see on this site.
Oh and forgive me -- your google document highlighting unreferenced material beginning with the Medieval Warm Period fallacy certainly trumps decades of peer-reviewed studies and observations by esteemed and dedicated scientists from the 4 corners of the world.
And finally: The medieval warm period was NOT?? regional -- love to see the peer-reviewed and properly referenced study on that one. But while we all wait for you to produce it (cough cough chuckle chuckle), I will provide you with some real science:
CLIMATE CHANGE:
Climate in Medieval Time
Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, Henry F. Diaz
"Many papers have referred to a "Medieval Warm Period." But how well defined is climate in this period, and was it as warm as or warmer than it is today? In their Perspective, Bradley et al. review the evidence and conclude that although the High Medieval (1100 to 1200 A.D.) was warmer than subsequent centuries, IT WAS NOT WARMER THAN THE LATE 20TH CENTURY. Moreover, the warmest Medieval temperatures WERE NOT SYNCHRONOUS AROUND THE GLOBE...."
R. S. Bradley is in the Climate System Research Center, Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003, USA. E-mail: rbradley
Germany now produces almost 20% of its total energy from renewable sources (not bad for only 10 years of trying). When the next energy shock happens (peak oil for example) where would you want to live?
Another problem is the missing database all these projections are based on. This work can't be replicated or tested independantly.
And they keep finding vinyards in the north of England and villages under retreating glaciers in europe.
"During the hot summer of 2003, reduction of an ice field in the Swiss Alps
(Schnidejoch) uncovered spectacular archaeological hunting gear, fur, leather and woollen clothing
and tools from four distinct windows of time: Neolithic Age (4900 to 4450 cal. yr BP), early Bronze
Age (4100–3650 cal. yr BP), Roman Age (1st–3rd century AD), and Medieval times (8–9th century AD
and 14–15th century AD). Transalpine routes connecting northern Italy with the northern Alps during
these slots is consistent with late Holocene maximum glacier retreat."
transit. The preservation of Neolithic leather INDICATES PERMANENT ICE COVER AT THAT SITE from ca.4900 cal. yr BP until AD 2003, implying that the ICE COVER WAS SMALLER IN 2003 THAN AT ANY TIME DURING THE LAST 5000 YEARS. CURRENT GLACIER RETREAT IS UNPRECEDENTED SINCE AT LEAST THAT TIME. This is highly significant regarding the interpretation of the RECENT WARMING AND THE RAPID LOSS OF ICE in the Alps.
Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Oh, and "Problem with all the groups you listed is that the evidence they based their endorsments on is really only Projections made by computer models."
Proof please.
and finally: "Another problem is the missing database all these projections are based on. This work can't be replicated or tested independently." Untrue -- the temperature data are still at each station for you to trudge up to and retreat if you wish. This also highlights another untruth floating around in Skeptic cyberspace that there has been a decrease in weather reporting stations thus skewing the data in favor of global warming -- the truth is that record retrieval is a time-consuming operation and there is a considerable time lag -- many years sometimes -- before all the records made in one decade can be included in the total data set.
Link for above quote"
It’s not just “hot periods previously”, it’s the fact that there were warmer periods during our current interglacial than now, and long before man could have had any impact.
It’s been well established that “peer review” as used by the IPCC folks is a joke. The fact that you’re not embarrassed to even broach that term indicates you have read nothing, or, for reasons only you could understand, are in denial.
The references below, which you obviously didn’t take the time to read, or understand, were included in that google doc, along with many more. Many of these references were actually peer-reviewed, unlike yours, although at least one liberal professor admits that these days peer review has lost most of its credibility.
In the case of the medieval warming period, more than a few researchers came to the conclusion about temperature levels being higher than now, (as well as in earlier warming periods) long before there was any axe to grind about “AGW”.
Would you care to explain away such things as the ancient vineyards found in areas where grapes cannot even now be grown, or the Viking maps of the entire coast of Greenland?
Do you still insist that temperature increases were linked to CO2? If not, then to what? Do you suppose the Vikings really walked the length of Greenland to generate a map of its entire coast?
I noticed that you have made no attempt to provide any evidence of AGW. Certainly “peer-reviewed (ala IPCC style)” document claiming that temperatures were not higher than now, is not evidence, let alone proof, of AGW (or CAGW).
I’m not a missionary, so couldn’t care less what you end up believing, but I am interested in coherent arguments that respond to the skeptics’ position. There are none available that I know of. In fact, even the "hot spot" predicted by the AGW "theorists" is missing. (I cannot resist adding that “skeptic” is not an accurate term in the case of AGW claims. To be skeptical, there must be a plausible issue to be skeptical about.)
c3headlines.com/.../...
pages.science-skeptical.de/MWP/MedievalWarmPeriod1024x768.html
c3headlines.com/.../...
The only certainty here is that you so far have nothing useful to offer to the discussion. That being the case be forewarned that I will most likely not bother reading or responding to any more of that drivil.
"In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion Bob Parks, Physics, U. of Md.
www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/pdf/Greenhouse_Effect_on_the_Moon.pdf
climatology.suite101.com/article.cfm/discredited-greenhouse-gas-theory-takes-global-warming-blow
hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2010/06/why-conventional-greenhouse-theory.html
In science, refuting an accepted belief is celebrated as an advance in knowledge; in religion it is condemned as heresy
climateaudit.org/2010/07/01/oxburgh-and-the-jones-admission/
There is considerable "wrestling" going on. Windmills and solar, both of which require the entire usual energy infrastructure as backup are (so far at least) not nearly ready. Environmentalists - and others - are busy fending off nuclear energy, the only real possibility.
Also, as it turns out, the calculations appear to show that even if the entire US population moved into caves tomorrow, it would not dent carbon generation because the 3rd world countries are anxious to become 1st world; the likes of China and India have no intention in participating in the cave-man concept.
"So tell me drewski, why are you on a skeptic web site? What do you hope to accomplish here? Can it be you warmist were sheltered on your warmist web sites and caught in fraud that you have to come here on the attack now to try and save face? And why do you have to do that? Can it be because no one believes your warmist trash any more? Or is it the warmist gravy train is drying up and now the time has come for you warmist that you have to work for once? And why haven't you made good on the bets you made with the couple of skeptics that you lost?"
Bets -- the only one I have made is for someone to point out a list of errors in the policy report of the IPCC - and, I grant, one legitimate concern was raised but it was an argument not proof of error -- and no money was ever offered by me -- another Skeptic fallacy. I do however, remember some Skeptic going on and on (maybe Interglacial John) repeatedly asking for "physical" proof as to CO@ warming the planet and he made an offer of money. I did provide him 6 peer-reviewed studies (done by atmospheric physicists and with the words "atmospheric physics" in the title) -- but, alas he was a Skeptic and he couldn't understand scientific papers and finally suggested I go to someone else to collect the money.
As to your other questions? Are they worthwhile or relevant or even written by an adult?
I guess that pretty much a microcosm that sums up the Skeptic versus Realist mindsets.
Well, sleep tight and give your teddy weddy a big squeezy hug from Drewski.
On the other hand, we have joltinjoe who is not a scientist, but can understand everything they can. And we have Joe Geshel who doesn't seem to understand the difference between meteorology and climatology but is certain that global warming is an alarmist lie.
I wonder how joltinjoe and Joe Geshel can explain this little tidbit from a 2001 Boston university study:
"We find that spring advanced by about 8 ± 4 days in North America and 6 ± 2 days in Eurasia. The decline of plant growth in autumn was delayed by 4 ± 3 days in North America and 11 ± 3 days in Eurasia. Therefore, the growing season is now about 12 ± 5 days longer in North America and 18 ± 4 days in Eurasia."
The more we learn about climate the more skeptical we become about climate Skeptics.
While you are at it, why not explain how the equivalent of more than 300 erupting Icelandic volcanoes spewing a heat-trapping gas (CO2) into the atmosphere on a daily basis can have no affect the heat capacity of the atmosphere? Because that is the central argument of Skeptics is it not? The Skeptics believe we can treat the atmosphere as a sewer, but hey nothing is going to happen right?
All the best Jeff
By the way, how many of you saw this headline today?
Dutch review backs U.N. climate panel report.
AMSTERDAM — The overall findings of a U.N. panel report were sound, despite concerns that errors had corrupted the credibility of its conclusions, said a Dutch agency charged with conducting a review.
The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency launched its review at the request of the Dutch Environment Ministry, after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted two errors in its report including one overstating how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.
"The IPCC report CONCLUSIVELY shows that these effects already are visible in many places around the world, and that these will become more serious under further temperature increases," PBL said in a statement on Monday.
Wow -- visible observations -- just what is a Skeptic to do now? Another examination, another exoneration -- when will it all stop?
Or may be Jeff knows and can tell me.
Alarmism is akin to Nebulosity. A situation where proof is neither asked or given is theology.
So are you saying drewski made a bet here?
By the way, how many of you saw this headline today?
Dutch review backs U.N. climate panel report.
AMSTERDAM — The overall findings of a U.N. panel report were sound, despite concerns that errors had corrupted the credibility of its conclusions, said a Dutch agency charged with conducting a review.
The PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency launched its review at the request of the Dutch Environment Ministry, after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted two errors in its report including one overstating how much of the Netherlands is below sea level.
"The IPCC report CONCLUSIVELY shows that these effects already are visible in many places around the world, and that these will become more serious under further temperature increases," PBL said in a statement on Monday.
Wow -- visible observations -- just what is a Skeptic to do now? Another examination, another exoneration -- when will it all stop?
opinion.financialpost.com/2010/07/06/lawrence-solomon-global-cooling-underway/
pgosselin.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/noaa-forecasts-great-drastic-cooling/
RSS feed for comments to this post